They've done it. California Senate has passed a slew of legislation. Among these is a bill that requires a permit fee for ammunition, the ammunition must be sold face to face in the presence of a clerk, and is overall not good.

They also passed other laws including banning the sale of semi automatic weapons with detachable magazines, registration of pistols with detachable magazine, banning the "bullet button", expands the prohibited persons list by adding alcohol and drug related offenses to the list, and requires a training certificate to buy a handgun or a long gun.

Poor california. I don't see all of this passing constitutional muster if push comes to shove but that could take a long time to be decided.

I hope we all realize every one of these bills, if signed into law by the governor, will be tested for legality in federal court.
For a state that has so many money problems, you'd think they'd not do things which will force the expenditure of tax dollars so frivolously.

__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci

Not that it is much comfort, but those bills merely passed out of their house of origin.

Senate bills must also be considered by the Assembly, Assembly bills by the Senate; typically two different committees - Public Safety and Appropriations - in each house, then a floor vote, then, if the second house amends a bill, a reconciliation committee. THEN the survivors go to the Governor. That will be mid-September.

There was a recent law that banned internet sales of handgun ammunition. It was reversed because "handgun" ammunition wasn't defined well enough.

They want to bypass that problem by limiting sales on ALL ammunition.

I don't see what problem they would have or not have because of handgun vs long gun ammo. Heller specifically addressed the right to own handguns so that ship has sailed for California if they are worried about a legal challenge.

I guess it keeps the "sportsmen" happy but that’s about it.

I honestly think a lot of this anti gun stuff is going forward now because the antis want to gamble we will see a change @ the SCOTUS in the very near future.

__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".

I don't see what problem they would have or not have because of handgun vs long gun ammo. Heller specifically addressed the right to own handguns so that ship has sailed for California if they are worried about a legal challenge.

The law was written for "handgun" ammo and the hazy definition of the term was the grounds by which it was overturned.

Politicians in CA don't worry about whether or not a given law is likely to be overturned. They just throw whatever they can get passed against the wall and see what sticks. A prime example is San Francisco's Proposition H, which banned handgun possession in 2005 (pre-Heller). Everyone knew that it would run afoul of the CA state preemption law because a similar law had been overturned on those grounds in 1982. They passed it anyway, the NRA took them to court and won and the City of SF had to pay $380,000 to the NRA in legal costs plus their own costs. That's over half a million dollars that could have been spent on police, fire and road maintenance, but was wasted on a lawsuit they KNEW they would lose.

Does anyone know what will happen to people such as myself who use bullet buttons?

__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor

Unfortunatly there is no hope left for California. During my working years, I lived there and even owned a gun shop there. For some time back then, they required me to keep a log of ammo sales including personal info on the buyer. This was in case they had to prove someone actually bought ammo and used it in a crime. After a few years of this, they figured out they hadn't solved even one crime with it and told us we didn't have to do it anymore. I called the state Dept.of Justice (that name still makes me laugh), and asked them what they would like me to do with all the logs. They said I could just dispose of them. They still won't learn from past mistakes and will keep doing it over and over until there are no more guns and ammo. You are not dealing with any knowledgable people here. As an example, I once sent in papework to the DOJ listing the S&W pistol I was selling as having a 2 1/2 inch barrel. I got a call back from some female wanting to know what a Z 1/2 barrel was.
They have their priorities there....but what should one expect from a state that will protect a person's rights to wander down the streets naked, but won't protect their rights to defend themselves.
I watched one college town make their police officers take the shotguns from the racks in their cars and carry them in the trunks. They decided that being able to see them from outside the car was offensive to the people of that town. I watched the same town take down all the "dead end" street signs as they were offensive to the same people. Now they all say "no outlet"
I restate it....there is no hope for California...write it off..

As much as I would love to just write off California, I have to live here for at least a few more years. I'm not liking what I've been reading here or on CalGuns about this legislation. Does anyone know how these new laws will effect places that sell guns and ammo on military installations in the area?

I think California and New York just want to have a race to the bottom and neither wants to be bested by the other. It's actually kind of sickening to think about.

I would think the military installations would be exempt from the gun crazies there, but don't quote me on that one. The military bases sort of have their own laws to enforce. Just remember what Johnny Cash said " Don't take your guns to town son".

The decision to provide free trigger or cable locks on 100 percent of weapons sold builds on a wide array of safety programs exclusive to the Exchange’s firearms and ammunition selection. In fact, each Exchange facility offering these products must undergo a rigid checklist of safety measures prior to opening.

The Exchange must get local Command, Fire Marshal and Security Officer approval prior to beginning the process of opening a gun shop. It then has to obtain a Federal Firearms License, secure an electronically monitored gun safe, construct a control counter and train personnel.

Once the firearm counter is open, ongoing measures include informing shoppers of federal, state and installation regulations that must be complied with, recording sales transactions and conducting instant background checks.

I would think the military installations would be exempt from the gun crazies there, but don't quote me on that one. The military bases sort of have their own laws to enforce

Military installations are FEDERAL property. State laws only apply to the degree that the Federal govt says they do. Federal law, and the UCMJ (which is also Federal law) are what applies.

For many years the Fed did not recognize state laws, (particularly environmental laws) as applying to Federal property. This changed a while back, and now, generally the Fed's position is to comply with state laws where possible.

As to any state gun law being enforced on a military base, its doubtful. The military has their own rules and requirements for lawful posession and storage of privately owned firearms. IF you have your personal AR in storage in the arms room(or at the provost marshall) the military is not going to care that the state of California has now decided it is a prohibited article. And I very seruiously doubt any state agents would be allowed to arrest you for having it, because having it on the base (complying with all Fed rules), its not a crime. When its on the base, legally, the gun isn't in California, and no crime has bee, or could be committed.

Stepping outside the base gate with your AR would be an entirely different matter. You have now brought the "prohibited" gun into the state of California, and they now have legal jurisdiction.

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

Does the anyone know if FOPA protects a motorist who is traveling into a state in which his firearm is prohibited, and onto a military or other government-owned facility? (ie a soldier traveling with his personally owned non-compliant AR-15 onto a military base in California)?

As to any state gun law being enforced on a military base, its doubtful

AAFES appears to believe it is bound by state gun laws. Since compliance costs them money, I tend to accept that evaluation.

Guns that stay on military installations are a different question.

It is certainly the case that both California and senior levels of installation command believe that the CA 'assault weapon' laws apply to service members and the personally owned weapons of those members.

AAFES appears to believe it is bound by state gun laws. Since compliance costs them money, I tend to accept that evaluation.

I think it's a matter of choosing to comply in places where a legal challenge by the state, county, or city would be more expensive than just complying with the state's wishes.

The way they handle alcohol in dry counties is probably a similar model - they maintain their stance that they can sell whatever they want to anyone entitled to AAFES benefits. ...right up to the point that a legal challenge poses a serious financial threat; forcing them to adopt policies that restrict sales in some way. (Such as with Santa Rosa County challenging Eglin AFB, in the late '90s - and the 'offending' exchange wasn't even in the county.)

__________________"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."

This all boils down to beefing up tax revenue by creative legislation to put more money into confiscation efforts. If ammo licence laws pass I will refuse to buy the permit and purchase my ammo in Nevada when I'm on vacation. Crime will not be reduced and the red tape for dealers will be a nuisance. Gang bangers will traffic ammo with their guns and drugs across state lines. Some of these politicians are frankly stupid. if you all haven't heard the news california courts are ordering criminals to be released due to overcrowding. Politician's don't care about public safety or they would decriminalize petty crimes so there is room in the jails for serious predators. We are creating an institutionalized subculture that hates the system but accepts prison as part of life. People will be railroaded into prison over an illegal ammo transaction and the revolving door will kick out a rapist or robber onto the street due to overcrowding rules. When the person who are sent in for ammo violations come out they will be bitter and more dangerous than when they went in.

Unfortunately they do this kind of stuff because the lower courts have been quite willing to let any and every kind of law pass as constitutional as long as its not a total ban. SCOTUS has passed on numerous opportunities to help define the right, leaving the lower courts as guardians(sort of like having the fox guard the henhouse).

It would classify as an assault weapon as any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and would ban its sale or purchase. People who already own such weapons would be required to register them.

So The Mighty Squirrel Assassin (better known as the Ruger 10/22) is now an "assault weapon."

Quote:

Other bills in the package passed by the Senate would have tightened additional laws, including banning a type of trigger known as a button.

What is this "type of trigger known as a button?" Is the author confused? Does she mean the bullet button?

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.